Where Islam spreads, freedom dies

In recent weeks, there have been two major stories that have forced the chattering classes to talk about the effect Muslims are having on Britain, despite their deeply entrenched politically-correct instinct to remain silent about it. The first was the Times newspaper's coverage of the Muslim gangs who groom, rape and force pubescent British girls into prostitution.

This phenomenon is found worldwide wherever Islam establishes a foothold. There was a comparable case in America not long ago. Islam teaches Muslims that they may have lawful sexual relations with infidel "captives" whom "their right hands possess". Muslims are taught to see themselves as being involved in a war with the infidel that will only end when all of the world has submitted to Islam. Infidel females, to them, are legitimate war booty.

In Britain, it has been well-known for years that this was going on, but the mainstream national media refused to cover it. Local papers in the affected areas did cover it, and even launched campaigns on the issue, demanding that the police investigate and prosecute the perpetrators which they refused to do because of racial sensitivities. Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP, even mentioned the issue in a speech years ago and was prosecuted for doing so! So Muslim paedophile gangs are allowed to rape British children with impunity but British people are prosecuted for merely pointing out that they are doing so!

Once the Times decided to report on the story, the rest of the media was forced to cover it too. Of course the despicable Guardian, now little better than a Muslim propaganda organ, published a loathsome apologia for the Muslim rape gangs.

The second major story that disrupted the usual cloak of silence was Baroness Warsi's speech about "faith" in which she accused Britons of a growing "Islamophobia". This speech seems to have spectacularly backfired for the Muslim cause in Britain. Several pundits challenged her claims, with a few even daring to express their disdain for the Orwellian term "islamophobia" and stating that we were right to fear Islam.

All in all, the last few weeks have seen more candid discussion of the corrosive effects of the Muslim presence in Britain than has been seen for a very long time. It may not amount to a British Sarrazin effect but it is at least a major step in the right direction.

Those of us who contemplate the problems Muslim immigration and proliferation are causing in Europe sooner or later realise that the only possible way of preserving European civilisation is for the Muslims to leave. But how could that come about? Below I present a sketch of a possible repatriation policy that could be implemented by a future government that is interested in preserving the well-being of its people instead of waging war on them.

Stage One: Registration

First of all, all Muslims will be required to register as such with the government. There should be a deadline for doing this. After the deadline, it becomes a criminal offence to be an unregistered Muslim in the country. New converts to Islam are given a grace period in which they must register. There will need to be some form of tribunal able to judge whether a person is a Muslim or not even if they have not registered as such. The standard of proof should be the civil one of "more likely than not" rather than the criminal one of "beyond a reasonable doubt", even though criminal penalties will apply. The penalties for failure to register as a Muslim should be forfeiture of all worldly goods (even the clothes they are wearing) of the Muslim and all family members up to a certain degree of separation, following by expulsion from the country.

Stage Two: Voluntary Departure

After the initial registration process is complete, all Muslims should be told that they are required to leave the country within 6 months. They can go wherever they like, as long as it's away from Britain. They can take all of their goods and assets with them. During this period, all registered Muslims leaving the country for good, giving up their British passports, will be paid a certain amount, say £10,000 to help with their resettlement costs. This will be per head and will apply even to children so a Pakistani family of man and wife with 5 children could be going home with £70,000 in their pockets. That is a lot of money in Pakistan and should allow them to buy a nice, big house and enjoy a comfortable lifestyle there. There can be no complaints that they are not being generously treated.

The money will only be paid if the Muslims are leaving not only Britain but the European Union. Many Muslims would seek to use their EU passports to move elsewhere in Europe. Offloading the Muslims to another European country would not be responsible, however, as all west European countries share the same predicament.

During the voluntary departure period, all Muslims in public employment should be dismissed from their jobs and all Muslims should lose their eligibility for benefits. The public practice of the Muslim faith should be prohibited. Mosques should be confiscated by the state and demolished. These measures are necessary to incentivise the departure of the Muslims.

Stage Three: Involuntary Departure

After 6 months, the involuntary expulsion phase begins. In this phase, no compensation is paid to the Muslims who are leaving and they have no choice about their final destination. The Muslims are removed by force and the money is instead paid to the governments of whichever country agrees to take them. There are dirt-poor countries in the third world that would probably be happy to take the Muslims off our hands for £10,000 per head or so. If necessary, we should pay more, perhaps throwing in some military training/equipment or foreign aid to sweeten the deal. If it proves difficult to find countries willing to accept the Muslims, we should consider alternatives. These would include simply occupying parts of countries which have no effectively functioning government, such as Somalia, and offloading the Muslims there. Another alternative is to recognise a separatist movement somewhere, where there may be a militia in conflict with a central government, acknowledging it as a separate country in return for a promise to take the Muslims off our hands. Of course we could also supply money and equipment in this case too.

Consideration should also be given to creating a completely new country and using it as a sink for undesirables (mainly the Muslims due to be expelled, but it could also prove useful for dealing with others such as illegal immigrants or asylum seekers). Africa would be the most obvious choice for creating a new country. Governments there are poor and the borders are largely artificial anyway, having been drawn up by European imperialists rather than evolving over the course of centuries according to the natural contours of geography, ethnicity and popular feeling.

Britain could offer to purchase territory from an existing African state or, in extremis, could simply occupy land and create a new state there without the agreement of the government which is formally in control of it. For the first few years, deportees could be given assistance in the form of money, food and agricultural equipment in order to establish themselves there. Britain would need to maintain some degree of imperial military control of the new country until the process of deportation was complete. If it is desired to maintain the newly created country as an outlet for illegal immigrants, imperial control would have to be maintained indefinitely. Imperial control could take the form of either maintaining a military presence at the points of ingress to the country (for example ports or airports) or, if it was thought desirable, Britain could attempt to play a shaping role in forming the government of the new country.

As an alternative to Africa, the Arctic could also be considered. Although generally inhospitable to human habitation, parts of the Arctic are capable of sustaining some forms of agriculture.

In this way it should be possible to get rid of the entire Muslim population in Britain (or any other European country) in a reasonably humane way within a few years. Pursuing a policy like this is the only way to prevent civil wars breaking out in Western Europe within a few decades. Many people have strong moral inhibitions about implementing a repatriation programme. Those inhibitions must be overcome. It is, quite simply, the only way to preserve our way of life.